@Andyjcp I believe that a pedal board with this maximum power should have 2ms and no more! I can accept maximum 5ms! and i don’t understand why with a patch with 47% cpu it has to give me 9ms !!! it is absurd that problems like this have not been solved! as well as other very serious problems !
2 Likes
I don’t understand… but are you speaking of QC as AUDIOINTERFACE or QC by ITSELF? it is not the same thing.
I don’t understanding this aspect of the topic. It seems some people speak as qc itself, another as audiointerface (latency computer dependant too)
To me has to be 4ms using two rows (just like AXE FX III for example)
The problem is when you record with headphones using real amps or acoustic guitars with mics the latency is done just by the audio card trip…so if we had another one from external units is too much!
Then as a joke I say to my friends “think if Hendrix comes back on this Earth and says to us :do you know that you can play with no latency?” lol!!
2 Likes
@Andyjcp but in any case we are talking about a latest generation pedal board that practically has the power of a Kamper! and has more problems than a Pod!
1 Like
has anyone talked directly to support or NDSP staff about this? We all know they rarely respond here. If you want them to address this, someone needs to contact them
especially considering this topic is titled “latency SOLVED” it’s probably not likely they’re looking here
QC only which introduces 7 to 10 ms of latency when you use two rows of blocks .So if u play with in ear monitors (to me) is not very acceptable especially if u play tight and fast rhythm patterns on click or electronic sequences. Probably I’M A TIMING FREAK 
With one row it goes down to 2/3 ms which is acceptable
1 Like
Well, actually, I am very happy with the QC and I had some other units before. Even compared to an FM3 (have not tried FM9), I prefer the QC.
Not saying there are no things to improve, but for my use cases, it’s excellent.
2 Likes
@Andyjcp We are all here cause it s very good in captures, that’s a fact! But Neural should check important aspects to the professional Gtr and bass players which are latency and unity gain managing
1 Like
@Andyjcp 9ms is about 460samples ! and that’s like recording with the computer’s buffer size at about 512! I think it’s impossible to go in time!
1 Like
Hey everyone : how about this ?
@Ringo no you are right the problem is QC is not! and the problem is that the Neural does not say anything!! and does nothing!!!
1 Like
@xush to the neural they don’t say anything as well as when I told them about the unity gain problem of the loops!! which they still haven’t admitted to having! strange that all their influencers say nothing???
1 Like
Yes and no. If you have an audio interface and set the buffer size to 512 (with 44.1kHz), you get 12ms latency plus the latency of the AD and DA converters.
So it might easily be 14ms or 15ms.
Most of my QC presets are around 4 or 5 ms, which is not too bad.
ciao,
i write because i see in several post i/o buffer size from pc based app
al volo… off topic
ma sei compagno e chitarrista di Elisa che ho visto in diversi concerti? (e che concerti!!)
Also if QC send the result with 10ms of latency is a big problem, But… how measure this timing?
For example in my case post 7ms i have problems in general, … but i don’t notice problems with QC usually.
I think that all the measures should be addressed not with the pc, as the drivers and the power of the pc can influence the result
Then anyone having issues with latency should vote on related feature requests, that seems to be what they prioritize (which makes sense)
The issues with the most feedback/complaints are being addressed. I haven’t seen that much talk of problematic latency except here.
Is there an “Improve Latency” feature request?
3 Likes
@xush you have to vote this topic so that the neural sees it and takes its responsibilities and solves the problem!!
1 Like